MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2797986264 · doi:10.2460/javma.252.9.1073

Development and psychometric testing of the Canine Owner-Reported Quality of Life questionnaire, an instrument designed to measure quality of life in dogs with cancer

2018· article· en· W2797986264 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Michelle A. Giuffrida, Dorothy Cimino Brown, Susan S. Ellenberg, John T. Farrar

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Veterinary Medical Association · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicHuman-Animal Interaction Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInstitute of Musculoskeletal Health and Arthritis
KeywordsMeasure (data warehouse)Quality (philosophy)Quality of life (healthcare)CancerPsychometric testingPsychometricsMedicinePsychologyClinical psychologyComputer scienceNursingData miningInternal medicineInternal consistency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE To describe development and initial psychometric testing of an owner-reported questionnaire designed to standardize measurement of general quality of life (QOL) in dogs with cancer. DESIGN Key-informant interviews, questionnaire development, and field trial. SAMPLE Owners of 25 dogs with cancer for item development and pretesting and owners of 90 dogs with cancer for reliability and validity testing. PROCEDURES Standard methods for development and testing of questionnaire instruments intended to measure subjective states were used. Items were generated, selected, scaled, and pretested for content, meaning, and readability. Response items were evaluated with exploratory factor analysis and by assessing internal consistency (Cronbach α) and convergence with global QOL as determined with a visual analog scale. Preliminary tests of stability and responsiveness were performed. RESULTS The final questionnaire-which was named the Canine Owner-Reported Quality of Life (CORQ) questionnaire-contained 17 items related to observable behaviors commonly used by owners to evaluate QOL in their dogs. Several items pertaining to physical symptoms performed poorly and were omitted. The 17 items were assigned to 4 factors-vitality, companionship, pain, and mobility-on the basis of the items they contained. The CORQ questionnaire and its factors had high internal consistency (Cronbach α = 0.68 to 0.90) and moderate to strong correlations (r = 0.49 to 0.71) with global QOL as measured on a visual analog scale. Preliminary testing indicated good test-retest reliability and responsiveness to improvements in overall QOL. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE The CORQ questionnaire was a valid, reliable owner-reported questionnaire that measured general QOL in dogs with cancer and showed promise as a clinical trial outcome measure for quantifying changes in individual dog QOL occurring in response to cancer treatment and progression.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.106

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.107
GPT teacher head0.408
Teacher spread0.301 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations47
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Veterinary Medical AssociationSame topicHuman-Animal Interaction StudiesFrench-language works237,207